RELIGION AND RELIGIONS - a clarification

Cool article.

And I find Religions a super fascinating part of the history of ideas.

With religion I get very agnostic. I worry about other things.

My goodness. You would enjoy courses in college such as World Religions, Philosophy, and Ethics. Me thinks you are a thinker.

Christina
p.s. What is seen is an illusion and what is not seen is real.
We are one and sending you lots of JOY!

The reality is that all Religions are not in cohesion. Christians believe the Bible in which Jesus said he is the only way to heaven. Muslims believe the Koran in which Mohammed said he was the true prophet of God and that Jesus was only a forerunner. These cannot peaceably co-exist as "part of the overall scheme of religion."

If you believe in one, you disagree with the other. Not everything fits into your relativism.

Joe

Either you misunderstand Thomas's post or I do. I don't think he is endorsing relativism. He agrees with you that Religions (with a capital R) are divisive, and I think he would agree that they are mutually exclusive. When he says "part of the overall scheme of religion" note that it doesn't have a capital R. That's what he calls generic religion - a process to bring mankind forward in an ever-advancing civilization.

----------------

Thomas

I think you will continue to have this problem as long as you use the term religion to label these totally different concepts. Your "generic religion" would probably sell better as spirituality, spiritual development, or spiritual evolution.

Cary: You are absolutely correct. It seems we are like minded, kindred spirits.

Joe, there are those Christians like myself who believe that all scripture is inspired but that they are all just the representation of a particular belief system and not hand-written by God. I believe that there is truth in the scriptures of all religions. I do not see any religion being above one or the other. It is our personal relationship with the divine that is the most important. We can have that without denouncing the religions of others or making them "wrong".

By the Christina, Thomas is not as young as his picture would lead us to believe. I would imagine that he has already attended college quite some time ago.

Thomas Paine wrote that a revelation, such as that afforded to Moses or to Mohammed, ceased to be a revelation and became hearsay as soon as it was passed on to someone else, and that therefore it was perfectly reasonable to believe in God but to disbelieve in all religion.

I'll stick with my man Thomas.

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other)..." (49:13)

What ??? !!! - that's not a recent icon photo of Thomas ????!!!

(ha ha)

Peter: I see what you mean. Re the photo. it is 3 years old. And I really am Thomas Millington

Christina: Yes, I am a thinker, and a DOER. And yes, I enjoy TEACHING the courses you mentioned. I agree that what is real is not apparent.. That which is apparent is not real. God is real, the earth is only apparent. Thank you for the joy you sent my way. It is folks like you that make participating on Gather such a joy.

Joe M: The different religions do not disagree with each other one iota. It is our understanding that is faulty.

Now I'm confused. You had religion with a capital R distinguished from religion with a lower case r. Now you appear to be mushing them back together. If you're not going to be consistent with this, you're going to fail to communicate.

Cary: Yes, thank you. I felt that using the term "different religions" could take a lower case r and still be clear as to the meaning. But you are correct and I thank you for commenting.

Thomas and Cary: You're both right as I see it. I fall into this "R" vs "r" trap at times myself. Being old I don't always remember what convention I established. The problem here is particularly difficult because modern people mezmerized into adopting "religions" that are passe by a thousand or thousands of years of obsolescence have become ignorant of the very nature of "Religion" itself. I was raised as a Christian but questioned all this myself (a very unusual situation, I admit) until I found the Baha'i Faith and finally understood what Religion is all about.

Carla G: I agree with you 100%. Thanks for expressing your views.

Carla: Re your 2nd comment, you are quite right. But please don't tell anyone.

Jonathan: Wise words. Thanks for sharing.

Mary J: Now who could disagree with this wisdom from the Qur'an?

Thomas,

Excellent short, but very meaningful article! There is a strong tie between Judaism, Christianity, Muslim and, to some extent, Zoroastrianism. There may well be other Religions that have been here and are small enough that I'm not familiar.

The Essenes were another sect related to Judaism and later, Christianity.

Buddhism share many commonalities with Christianity and is a gentle Religion. Gutama(?) Buddha was a great and interesting teacher.

Muslim share the old testament with Christianity and Judaism. While many Christians consider Muslim to be an aberration of the faith, Muslims are as fervent as is possible in their belief.

What I know about the Hindu Religion would fit on the head of a pin with room left over so I cannot comment on that one! I've known one Hindu in my life and we exchanged a few things but I'm still lacking.

It is speculated the the so called lost years of Jesus were spent with the Essenes and/or the Zoroasters as he brought teachings common to Zoroaster and Essene teachings and not to Judaism.

It is also probable that John the Baptist was am Essene because pf his teachings and dietary characteristics.

Fascinating study!

James: Thank you. You are a wise and learned man.

I concur ... I just call religion spirituality when speaking of the generic kind.

Jerry: Good idea.

PS ... it is my findings that when religion becomes institutionalized, it often becomes dogmatic and objective, rather exoteric and that makes it Religion and then exclusive.

Then religion in it's pure form, that which allows it to be generic, is universal, subjective spiritually, personal and esoteric ... all things that make it mystical and thus NOT fitting any longer into the confines of Religious dogma ...

Thus Religions call such as religion heretical, of the occult, and false prophecy tainted by evil ... in all too many cases ... because it seems to compete with the Religious "Institutionalized" view that requires "followers" ... no "free thinkers" allowed in those "Churches".

Spirituality and religion allow individuals to receive the truth that sets them free ... free from churches.

IMnsHO.

Folks: I saw a program on PBS the other night about the origin of the concept of Satan. Our modern concept (even to Christians) is shaped mostly by Zoroastrianism. The word in old Persian (not modern Farsi) for the devil is Deev and someone pointed out to me that the devil does not appear in the Bible until after the Jews were held captive by the Persians and finally released. There are definite connections with Zorastrianism to both Judaism and Christianity and Islam.

interesting stuff as always! :)

Jerry Kays.: I hear you loud and clear. And I totally agree with you. EXCEPT that this really applies only to the "institutionalizing of religion" as it has occurred in the past. And while it is very understandable for one to presume that it will always be as such, it behooves us to be open to the possibility that God (Who created everything, including us) can provide alternatives that lesson those negative aspects. If we were only dealing with a very few people such as yourself who have the inner spiritual strength and control to act more or less independently, your proposal would work perfectly well. But we aren't. We -- you and I, among others of those few -- live in a world of billions of developing souls. Aside from the pure issue of personal spiritual development, we need to be concerned with "the spiritual development of society as a whole". Our very lives depend upon it. And there is no pragmatic way that our society can develop sufficiently to avoid race suicide through catastrophic war without the implementation of an "organized" religious movement. Jerry, we are not talking about "personal salvation" removed from "social salvation." Personal salvation is meaningless without social salvation. In fact, it was Jesus Who pointed out that to win victory over oneself he/she has to lose oneself in others and in helping others. But that "organized religious movement", to be meaningful and effective must of necessity be completely divorced from the "organized religions of the past" that you quite rightly detest, as do I. It cannot even be in the same format of those in the past. We have to "move on" as a species in our developmental phase. As I said in a comment to another article, just wishing for and praying for PEACE is not enough. We need to face up to the challenge and make some real, significant changes in our social paradigm of operating. It is too late in the game for us to do it "one by one". It has to come in masses and be overwhelming in its emotional hold on the people. Otherwise, we are doomed. And mark my words, "IT WILL HAPPEN". Things will get to the point where the people of the world will have no choice but to move on up to the challenge or die.

Donald, I realize we agree on the issues at hand ... except for one (small ?) detail ... that being the social group as compared to the individual.

Groups are made of individuals, and yes, individuals are affected by groups, though ... secondarily I would say.

I speak against the "sheeple" thing because of our history and what that has resulted in so far ... it is not a pretty picture.

I am not for egoistical individualism, except for as the learning experience it is prior to learning of the Spirit withIN ... it is this latter INdividuality that I am for, that which knows itself connected to the entire creation rather than just preferred "groups(s)".

Of course I rule out nothing such as some new group coming along to help the entirety, such as your own religion may well be, the more the better and the sooner the better, but I still maintain that it is an individual thing (the recognition of Spirit), though it has happened many times in a group setting where the atmosphere seems to be more "inducing".

But there is also a vast history of those who Religiously "found god" in Tent Revivals and the like ... only to subsequently relate it to the dogma that sponsored it, rather than the generic purity it was intended to be by Spirit, that to be imparted into their being. Too many saw NOT what was meant to be (+=-), but rather saw that of what they already were (+/-), the net effect being worse rather than better ...

But I am more than open for any group such as yours, that makes a major change for the better, no argument that it is much needed, and that the coming times will make that clearer than ever ... IMnsHO.

Very good article. You would enjoy Allan Jannsen's book God 101, which I am currenlty reading.

Hi Thomas,
Got things stirred up a bit, didn't you?
I believe strongly in the basis and concepts, but my grandfather had a point. No one was allowed to discuss religion or politics at his house. Made for a peaceful visit.

I've found over these many years that parents begin lying to their children about the tooth fairy, Santa, the bunny with the colored eggs, etc. Then they pull a shocker and tell you that it was all in fun. (Then one doesn't trust their own parents.) Now introduce the concepts and theories of religion. Is it any wonder that an enity that is not seen is to be believed by these same children? Makes you scratch your head and wonder.
I've just concluded that if you get too involved in religion and the different concepts, you will indeed need to be "institutionalized". I was informed this last week that if you refer to your denomonation as a "church" you are placing a "curse" on those who attend. I almost laughed out loud. The people are the church, whichever one they subscribe (?) to at the moment. So, I am backing way off and hiding and watchiing to see just where this bunch is headed. I learned long ago not to get entangled in a web.
My brother would say I was a, "free thinker". But then he doesn't believe in anything but the dollar bill, and that's threateniing to go down the toilet.
Isn't life interesting?
Keep up the good work, whether your icon is current or not. I enjoy your outlook.

Barbara S.

Barbara,

Very articulate and wise words! I've objected for many years to the practice of lying to children. When in hight school, I had a teacher who stated that if you didn't believe in Santa Claus you were off in the head. I can remember no time when I was unaware that my parents were Santa Claus. I received gifts from Santa each year and always thanked my parents. They said you're welcome!

The Santa thing can be a great game as long as all participants know it is not real. Same with the tooth fairy and other miscellaneous myths. None are harmful if recognized as a game. That is how I was raised and my children also.

And Barbara, life is very interesting!

I don't agree with Carla, but what else is new?

I have found that most (although not all) Gatherites are either atheists or "softies" on religion who are all too quick to dismiss the faith of religious adherents. To those without the personal experience of faith who nonetheless seek a "universal truth," the mere existence of a panoply of religions is irritating, and (to this mindset) prima facie evidence of the illegitimacy of all of them.

Religious communities strengthen their larger populations and form the moral "glue" that hold these populations together. Look at the leaders in your town and find there, overwhelmingly, those who are deeply faithful and committed to something larger than themselves.

Ecumenism and cross-religion communication generally signals a strengthening of the community at large that springs from the incredible energy and God-centeredness of devout congregations. Where you see, for example, Christian-Islamic conferences, you also see very solid and strong communities that are addressing societal challenges on various levels.

The resolution of belief sets among religions is not preeminent in ecumenical concerns. This does not in turn amplify any sense of a "third-party" validation of faith. There is no "scheme" for world religion, and no need for a scheme. That said, I agree with the last sentence of your post, Thomas.

Ecumenism can be a step in the right direction for religions ... unless it is meant to just be a rounding up of the wagons for defensive purposes.

Barbara: Thank you for your comments.

Ecumenism is deceptive in that it allows various adherents to imagine that they are doing their religious duty in light of a growing appreciation for the fact that religion is not the private domain of any one person or group of persons. But in some ways it is counter productive to the primary purpose of religion. This is because it becomes an excuse for not facing the fact that one's own "religion" (Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, etc.) was designed for a specific time and place in human development that is past. It therefore prevents those involved from making the hard choice of "moving on" as Jesus, for instance, specifically stated would have to happen in the future with the coming of the Comforter. So that while ostensibly furthering the primary purpose of religion to "bring together" it in fact only prolongs the actual purpose of bringing people together not only on "get together days" but permanently in one unified religious paradigm.

Thomas, I so enjoyed reading all the comments on your fine article. I am not going to comment on the subject. I am saving my breath. Thanks for all your great writing.

What I have noticed, is that if at all possible, our "main stream media" bends over backwards to give the impression, through labels, that religious folk are quite prone to violent conflict. People seem not to realize, that it is entirely logical, for criminals to masquerade as religious folks, if they are located in a place dominated by a particular religious persuasion. Folks tend not to realize that just because a newscast identifies some violent folks with labels reflecting some religious persuasion, that does not mean the violence they do has anything whatsoever to do with that religion.

911, is the glaring example, and we were told that this was done by "religious extremists". The people that told us that, have since proven to be . . . fallible, shall we say . . . Yet, we still speak as though that were a given. It most certainly is not, and just because some leader says "they don't like our freedoms", does not mean that anything done by folks calling themselves Muslims (or purpotedly done by such), is an attempt to conquer the world for Islam. The Sunnis and Shea of Iraq, are not battling for their respective religious concepts, though one would hardly realize that, given the constant references to all conflict there in those terms. The news broadcasters generally called the Irish "terrorists" by some form of "Catholic" label, but they were not upset about the way non-Catholics worshiped God. That simply was not a religious conflict. So too the Israeli/Palestinian unpleasantness, since both those societies are among the least religious in the world.

I suspect we are being "played" on a grand, though not necessarily conscious, scale. By people that find religion a barrier to achieving their aims. There is , I think, a major problem which the "amoral" institutions of corporatism, and capitalism in general, have with the "moral" institutions, like religion. There is a natural "friction" which arises, when a "capitalist" activity encounters "moral" limitations on what a people will do, and accept, which can be quite profitable otherwise. Things like gambling, provocative sexuality exploitation, both parents working full time, and any number of other "modern" trends . . . are resisted by religious folks. Simply put, religion is bad for profit, and profiteers.

But, many irritated, for various reasons, by the idea of an all powerful Being watching over things . . . are not at all hesitant to go along with the slanderous BS of the profiteers. They like it just fine when religion is berated. I think they actually believe that the God Being becomes less . . . worrisome, as religions fade. Silly things, we people.

Jesus called this thing 'Mammon', it seems. He said one cannot serve both Mammon and God. That's what I think the fighting is about.

Donald Hawley: "[Ecumenism] in fact only prolongs the actual purpose of bringing people together... permanently in one unified religious paradigm."

That's exactly what I'm saying is unnecessary. It's sad that you have adopted a condescending view of religions and have set yourself up as the final arbiter of what is valid and relevant. Thomas' article was a tweak, and you've taken the bait.

Dave: I feel that you have misunderstood the purport of my article and Donald Hawley's comment thereon. He is quite correct.

Thanks Mary. You are very kind.

Thomas,

Oh, so you see no problem with this little concept here;

" . . . the fact that religion is not the private domain of any one person . . . ."

Well, I got news for you; religion is my private domain, and I don't give a rodent's rear end what you "hive" folks make of that.

Thomas, I got the purport and I disagree with it, with you here, and with Donald. If you agree with him that's your choice. There's no "scheme" as you put it; no "fading" or "unified paradigm" as Donald puts it. When there is, we'll be at the end of our time here. I'll be happy enough to witness that in its own good time, thank you.

When I said above that your article was a "tweak," Thomas, maybe I was giving you too much credit. For someone who purportedly "teaches" college-level courses in World Religions, and on a good day presumably knows how to spell "tailor," you have neither established a footing for your claim for a "scheme" unifying religions nor dealt with what must be a vexing problem for a fly-over would-be teleologist like you: the faith experience of religious people. Those problems unresolved, you're an easy victim for the ravages of blindness to the contributions of people of faith in your community and others. It's something you don't get, and I wish you would.

sigh..... oh Dave.... isn't it interesting that everyone who disagrees with someone comes around sooner or later to their SPELLING?!? LOL LOL If Gather made spellcheck available you would never be able to tell your enemy from everyone else.

Can you possibly write with I statements about what you think and believe?
It would seem more note-worthy, being calm and non-attacking. You Religious control freaks are SO condescending it's difficult to read and understand you. Every word is judgement. Wasn't that supposed to be left to God?

Hi Sandy,

I wrote that over a year ago, and I have toned down my own rhetoric a bit since then, although I can still be a bit sarcastic at times.

In terms of your comments, as I pointed out a couple of times, the referenced article was somewhat of a "tweak" in that it counseled that religious adherents relegate their belief systems to a cog in a larger "system" representing (Thomas' vision of) God's "overall plan." I found that commentary not only condescending, but vulnerable to any number of of legitimate criticisms. Not least, the idea that interfaith communications can form a rich environment for exploring God's "overall plan" for the world. There's always the biblical admonition to oppose "world governments," and whether that label would apply to the vision presented here is open to question, in my opinion.

I do judge the concept in Thomas' article to be lacking, but I don't sit in judgement of Thomas as a person. He has a lot to offer, and I did say that I wish he would pick up on some of the thoughts that I offered. I don't agree that every word of my comment was "judgement." Whether the tone was as sweet as it could have been, I expressed ideas, and I think I made some valid points. In any event, I appreciate your struggling through it as you did, and wish you well.

The "end of such time" will be when Religion "as we now know it" has been replaced with pure generic religion, commonly known as generic spirituality, based upon the BET (+=-) ... IMnsHO.

The reason being that only then will we all be centered upon the real one and only neutral spirit of God over all. Then we will be allowing and accepting of, our then probably more "minor," differences, in appreciation even of them, calling them natural diversity which we would cooperate around for a creative synergy ... rather than the destructive conflicts now engendered by our very UNspiritual leaders, secular AND Religious ... who thrive on the conflicts over the fears of differentiation and the dynamics that creates, which those "leaders" can manipulate for their own personal gain financially and egotistically.

The greatest divides between people are those that have been created in their minds, usually by their "leaders and authorities" ... when people are conflicting with each other, they blame each other and never realize the real source of the "control" that causes the division and conflict in the first place, as long as we are busy with each other we never look "up" (or wherever) to the source of it all. Business (including Religion) as usual.


As for MSM depicting religion and/or Religion in a certain way, those MSM's are also actually "owned" by the same controlling corporate interests that actually own our governments to the controlling degree they do, and especially the far right media called FOX ... that offers just enough contrast between the two "different" presentations to make each side of the political divide (right/left) believe that their respective news/editorial/entertainment sources is "on their side" ... (r/l).

How many pay attention to the FOX controlled TV programs that are pure trash from the Religious claimed perspective ? Much of the most morally deficient garbage that any sane person would never want their children to watch, religious, Religious, secular of spiritual, is routinely shown on FOX network programming.

Yet FOX plays up it's supposedly Religious Friendly Image all of the time ... as it complains about the MSM and incites it's own Religious sheeple into fear and hatreds against others ... all divide and conquer tactics by "leaders" in authority overall ! Hypocrites to the extreme.

There is ENERGY in differentiation between polar oppositions, the greater the differences the greater the energy involved ... the more energy the more profit to be raked in by the controllers hiding in anonymity pulling the strings of the leaders we (falsely) believe (as we are "supposed" to) are working on our side for us ...

There is One God and that God speaks to each of us with the same message of love and truth, done through our INtuition on a personal basis moment by moment ... when we come to realize that and utilize the strength of it for highest truth, then we will have the "ecumenism" that really works for all ... and that will be the end of this world "as we now know it" ...

IMnsHO.

Jerry Kays: At last a parting of the ways. Well, almost. I think "revealed religion" will never leave us. It will, however, get more and more sophisticated as we become more spiritually sophisticated. The "messing up" by nefarious or well meaning interlopers will continue but be abated as we, in general, become more spiritually astute and sensitive. What we have seen historically is "out the door" for the most part although people haven't yet woken up to the fact. Right now, though, we are no where near being able to "go it on our own." It will be many, many generations before your approach will be even a little bit feasible. There are so few like you around, even potentially. You should be able to tell just by the responses you get from the "John" Does. Got what I mean?

Sadly I agree Donald ... but it seems just bad enough and getting worse rather than better, that we probably don't have a whole lot to lose by trying to just balance everything out for a compromised "new beginning" ... it doesnt mean that we have to forget everything from the historic past, just try and see it in a new (brighter) light ... IMnsHO.

Mankind is moving headlong toward a state of total unification. When that happens 'religion' will be like 'education' - a process unnamed.

Jerry: "we will be allowing and accepting of, our then probably more 'minor,' differences"

I don't have a problem accepting differences now. Yes, I evangelize when I have an opportunity. That doesn't translate into hatred or violence toward others. What certain groups do in the name of religion should not be confused with the religion or the beliefs of masses of adherents. John Knight ran through that scenario above.

Donald Hawley: "What we have seen historically is 'out the door' for the most part although people haven't yet woken up to the fact."

I guess that means it isn't "out the door" -- except in your mind.

Thomas -- when your point has been dismantled, please don't keep repeating it. Try addressing what I said, or admit that there's nothing underpinning your idle thoughts.

good article, you should submit it to my group truth seekers.

from my 5 major religions of the world course at concordia university,

there is also taoism and shintoism you could even add to the group,

Carol: Thank you for your comments.

Thomas, how does your definition of Religion/religion square with belief? Do you believe that one can believe in God's plan, without subscribing to a specific religious practice?

...the Wisdom of the "Wise" He will frustrate...

The "intellectualisation" of Faith...revealing.

Well put, Kay. That is what I meant by the term "fly-over" and the failure of the article to address the faith experience of religious people. The article "flies over" at 30,000 feet and attempts to make sweeping generalizations about what actually occurs in faith communities, and winds up with a whimsical melt-down of religions, like so much cheeze whiz on a basket of nachos.

We're headed for a unified, conflict-free generic religion, based on the Bagadavita with a New Testament authored by Mr. Hawley. Don't ask any questions. Everything's been handled for you.

Actually there are one or more great mansions with many rooms and there will be something for everybody ... the trick is to try and figure out while alive here who you want for your eternal room mates. :-)

Jerry: Quite simple. Every school has many rooms, each geared to the level of maturity and readiness for more learning of the students. When we outgrow one we move on to the next.

An interesting, well written post! Keep 'em coming.

Oh, and BTW, enrich your experience on Gather by joining us at pointmasters.gather.com.

Cy: Thank you for your kind words. Re your group, I have no interest in gathering points. Thank you for the invitation.

(It's a canned message Thomas . . . kinda like cheeze wiz  ; )

I took another look at the text, and I see the point in the article where the logical fallacy occurs: "Religion is based upon the acceptance of God; the process was designed and put into motion by God." The statement looks innocent enough until one realizes that God's existence and God's plan is revealed and made palpable to the believer through faith.

The article goes on from that point discussing God's plan for the world in the third person, forgetting the distinction between this "generic" God and the God known to the believer through faith. The generic, third-person God is said to be doing all sorts of things, and there is no support for those claims. It could as easily be said that the generic God wants to trash the Earth. Remember, this is not the God of any one religion, and cannot be by the logical constraints of the article--this is the God of Thomas, out there processing things in ways dictated by Thomas.

When in the last paragraph Thomas returns to considering the faithful, he finds fault with those "who do not see their particular Religion as a part of the overall scheme..." The claim is made that this deficit, this failure to line up one's faith with the God of Thomas, leads to "strife." Of course the opposite is true. In every case, faithful obedience to the precepts of one's own religion is the course that leads to peace, individual and societal growth.

It is those who wander astray from the hard and fast guidance of their very particular brand of religion who bring about strife--whether it's a Christian televangelist wishing out loud for the assassination of a political leader, or Osama Bin Laden violating Islamic law regarding the use of military force and killing of innocents.


`In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, I would have told you. I am going to make a place ready for you.' Thomas said to Jesus, `Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?'

Jesus said to him, `I am the way. I am the truth. I give life. No one can come to my Father unless I take him there. If you knew me, you would have known my Father also. But from now on you do know him because you have seen him.' -- John 14:2,5-7 (Worldwide English)

But Dave, most people "see" all of that "objectively" ... that is why they allow no "other" to guide nor accept them into what is meant to be, from the perspective of Christ, a "subjective" Spiritual relationship with Him ... that which I have without need for Christian creed and dogma I might add ... IMnsHO ... and assuredly arguable by most "Christians".

Father God (+), Christ Holy Spirit (=), unrealized, (objective thinking) humans (-).

(+=-).

Jerry,

It doesn't matter if you just keep calling that Book 'dogma', it doesn't change because you call it this or that. It remains the most influential piece of literature in the history of the world. One could call Plato, 'dogmatic' too, for his words remain a part of our very foundation as a civilization, but what purpose is served by such silly labeling? And for you to assume that those who believe it is the very Word of an all knowing God take it in anything remotely like a "dogmatic" way, is quite pompous of you, I think. Much like an illiterate person decrying the uselessness of education. It may be useless to them, but they don't actually have it to make use of, do they?

Please speak of the wisdom you have, but refrain from berating the wisdom you have not. There is no end to foolishness, nor the lack of wisdom. What use in dwelling on such?

Can you not grasp what is meant by "the Holy Spirit" ? It is the very "inward" aspect of my religion which you claim to advocate. You are no god, such that you can casually speak of what others experience within. I care not that you imagine such things, for you demonstrate no such capacity at all. Tell me of things which we have some way of verifying, or please quit insisting you could. It seems you are annoyed at the concept of others limiting by their preconceptions what you may have experienced, does it not seem right that you refrain from annoying others thus?

PS,

I feel it is my duty to warn you of something you have no way I can see of knowing about; Within the text of that Book, are the words of Jesus, which though open to interpretation by men, speak of a single unforgivable sin;

He that gathereth not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Though you may find such words irrelevant, or even objectionable, I advise you to be careful in this matter, as a friend. Perhaps not now . . .

John, it does no good at all for you, to have me comment as I do, I do so for others that may read the words, having given up on you as of late.

As for Jesus THE Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit, I will take my cues from the Urantia Book any day rather than the Book you promote ... the very reason being that the bulk of the followers of your Book seem to take it exoterically and it, actually preached that way by too many, probably most, "authorities" of that Religion.

As for your "warnings", I have no need to deal in fear, I am confident that my beliefs and actions are acceptable to the divine realm ... on the contrary, it is the ones with exoteric ideas that should heed such warnings, most of them will be "Not Known by Him" ... He and I know each other well ... you would really be so much better off to believe that.

(+=-)>(+/-) IMnsHO.

Jerry: "Most people... allow no "other" to guide... them into what is meant to be... a "subjective" Spiritual relationship..."

I'm happy that you agree that the article advocates the hegemony of a vaguely defined "other" and therefore represents a version of that which you seem to rail against incessantly: somebody else's dogma encroaching on your "'subjective' Spiritual relationship," as you call it.

Regarding the rejection of dogma and the braying of herded sheep, I look at my own experience in the United Methodist Church and ask myself: "am I being force-fed?" The only thing I can come up with is really bad coffee at "fellowship time" between services. I have difficulty fathoming what could have sufficiently offended you in your experience with "organized religion" to make a career out of trashing it. (Other than perhaps you belonged to a Catholic church--sorry Catholics, couldn't resist.)

Being part of a worshiping community is a terrific opportunity for me and so many others--to invite the Holy Spirit to come down among us, to serve the community, to pray and study, to recharge the spiritual batteries, if you will. We have a pastor at this time who is way, way to the right of me politically. He knows it and we joke about it occasionally. He's not about to brainwash me on any of his Reich Wing holdings, no matter how many scriptural references he comes up with.

For my part, Jerry, I've given up on influencing your condescending attitude, so "nyeaaah." Rail on, buddy!

Dave, because I care about your thoughts, I had just spent close to 45 minutes typing up a comment explaining all of this to you to the degree I thought you would understand and accept my position on all of this better ... but when complete during the spell check process, I moved my cursor elsewhere to Google to check the spelling of a word and lost it all ... extremely frustrating to me and I am not in the mood to redo it now.

So I will end with just saying that your own religious views and practises are not what I am against here on Gather, only your support of those views I am against ... those views being the ones that criticise my view of bringing everyone together under the same unconditionally loving God.

It is all as simple as that ... (+=-)>(+/-)

Sorry about the data loss, Jerry. My hard drive crashed a few days ago and although I had a backup, I didn't get it all back. Ow!

The devil is in the details, Jerry, whether you are talking about word processing or seeking God. Christians believe in God's unconditional love, freely available to all. I've read quite a few of your expositions and feel like I could probably recite your own flavor of dogma backwards in pig Latin if I had to. We could fill up Gather's storage server network with analysis of the balancing of good=evil, and a sense of wholeness from self-validation, warts and all. But if I'm faced with the question, "Shall I jab this fork into my eye, or not?" I am going to choose "not" every time. Our choices in life do matter, and none of us, "whole" that we are, is perfect. I don't cower in a corner waiting for judgement day, nor do I goose-step in time to the dictates of a crazed High Priest like some idiot automaton. I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The fellowship of Christians is a valued and helpful force in my life.

:-) (the fork in the eye part I do not understand though).

Jerry (and others),

" . . . my view of bringing everyone together under the same unconditionally loving God.

It is all as simple as that ."

I don't doubt that in your mind, you see such "bringing everyone together under the same" God, as a very good thing. But I ask, quite seriously, why was it not a good thing when other religious folks used that very same rationale to critisize the aproach of those that differed with theirs?

There is a an inherent contradiction in the idea that "we" must savage the aproaches of others, so "we" can all be united. This article trumpets the dawning of a great new age when all will adopt the view of the author, and abandon the lesser forms of religion, which he sees as improper in various ways . . . and says they "do not see their particular Religion as a part of the overall scheme of religion". But I tell you the truth; EVERY "particular" religious person, believes their particular religious views are proper. Indeed, EVERY person, believes all their views are proper. That's WHY they hold those particular views.

And while the author is surely correct that taking ones religious views too "seriously", can lead to fanatisism, and strife . . . here he intentionally condemns all who do not submit to his particular views. He is intentionally striving, fanatically, for HIS particular religious views, in the name of ending strife and fanatisism over religious views.


In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach
My pathway led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

          (B. Dylan)


Live, and let live.
Believe, and let believe.
Worship, and let worship.
Preach, and let preach.
Live, and let live.

"We", is an illusion. There's nobody here but us "me"s.

All I can say is that to me there is a vast difference in supporting a Religion that calls for exclusivity where theirs is deemed the ONLY ONE, and a religion that attempts to unite each and all under a singular concept of unconditional love for one and all being the truth of it ...

Jerry: Your last statement is a gem. I'm with you on that.

But if your religion loses the exclusivity, why aren't you accepting of Christians?

"All I can say is that to me there is a vast difference in supporting a Religion that calls for exclusivity where theirs is deemed the ONLY ONE, and a religion that attempts to unite each and all under a singular concept of unconditional love for one and all being the truth of it ... "

Nope, they are one and the same things. It don't matter that YOUR religious views have special words which you find capture THE truth. They all do, that's what religions are.

PS,

Besides, I can "trump" your "unconditional love", with "perfectly unconditional love", anyway. I see your "BET", and raise you One Eternal Life  ; )

Well, in keeping with my, and the authors, theme of designating differences between upper case (capitalization) Religion (meaning of the churches) and religion (lower case r) meaning natural and generic, "direct" from God on a personal basis, (what I call "spirituality") ... I will stand by my words of intention ...

I would accept all Christians into my concept of spirituality (religion) provided they were NOT as exclusive as most are, because via their exclusivity, all they would do is attempt to Evangelize (proselytize) to everyone else, meaning that they would NOT come in in good faith ... IMnsHO ... there surely are some Christians who would be inclusive enough to be acceptable and they would be ... besides, I do NOT promote anything other than God's Truth as (+=-) and things do not get any more INclusive than that, it even allows the INclusiveness of exclusivity, thus none are excluded when you get right down to it.

John, you can make any statement you want, but that does not require anyone to accept it ... most Religions may well be the same in many respects, but there are no two things in the whole universe that are exactly alike in every way, Religions can differ greatly, and usually do. Spirituality (religion) based upon (+=-) accounts for everything there is or could be, and the Spirit (=) unites it all where the ALL is considered to be God, and then in "that" regard, "they" would all be the same, much more so than Religions.

Unconditional Love is already "perfect", as is the BET (+=-), it being the symbolization for perfection and anyone that understands it and utilizes it thusly is also perfect. It also stands for Eternal Life as well. In "fact", and Truth, IT IS THE TRUTH !

Jerry,

"you can make any statement you want, but that does not require anyone to accept it"

That's my point; merely SAYING one is for the end of religious conflict, hardly justifies attacking people that don't agree with one's religious concepts. You not grasping the folly in such duplicity, hardly makes for good PR . . . but, to each their own, I guess. Good luck getting anyone with integrity to join your crusade.

John, my "crusade" is only the promotion of truth, a very (extremely) worthwhile endeavor very much needed in this world.

The only attacking that I do is against those who attack truth, those confrontational egotistical dualists such as yourself. It is the ego that holds integrity so selfishly, such as the ones needing the word, those with integrity to all of humanity already understand and abide by it ... it is those most needing change that refuse it, deny it, and attack me first ... but of course you deny that in yourself don't you John ? There seem to be no allowances for relative truths according to you as one who allows no grey areas, all being either right or wrong no room for questions.

Enjoy your selfish "integrity". (+=-)>(+/-)

Yes, I understand, you are a "fanatic" as Thomas puts it. You are much troubled by those that speak of THEIR truth as the "ONLY ONE" acceptable . . . but have no hesitance to speak of YOUR truth as the ONLY ONE acceptable.

You find it improper, to say the least, that OTHERS will allow no "grey areas" on these matters, which would allow for "common ground", but, you feel it is quite proper for YOU to insist there be no grey areas on these matters, and all must stand only on your grounds, or they are troublemakers, deserving of your righteous rebuke.

You distinguish yourself as inherently hypocritical in these matters. Again, that is something you are perfectly free to do, and something I am perfectly free to point out.

Take care.

John, I have given you the benefit of the doubt most often, but now I will just call it like it is ... you are a liar !

And on top of that, you seem to have made it your mission to intentionally distort my message ... if there was ever a hypocrite concerning being in the service of one's Lord, it is surely you John. If you really "believed" as you "claim", I would think that you would be more concerned about the sins you are surely committing here in lying.

Oh, heavens, the self appointed god has condemned me for dishonesty . . . whatever shall I do to regain my innocence ?

Some of this is interesting.

I have a couple questions. I am interested in your thoughts (most of you), but have no expectation of THE TRUTH.

One - can a case be made that Buddhism is not a religion. I know the Dali Lama says that he is just a monk and is quite willing to look at what science has to say that is at variance with what he has been taught. Did you know that as a child he was taught that the earth was flat?

Two, what about LDS, the Mormons> Guess you can say they are part of Christianity, but quite a different part. They are really the new kids on the block. There religion is not old at all, but it is growing fast. My next door neighbors are LDS and about the kindest people you could ask to meet, but in my opinion it takes a real "leap of faith" to believe the Joseph Smith story.

BTW, if you think Islamic fundamentalists are nuts, check out LDS fundamentalists.

Elmo: There are Divinely revealed religions and then there are churches, sects, denominations, etc founded by inspired, sometimes, individuals. The divinely revealed religions are Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, and others which have been lost to history. The Founders of these religions were appointed by God to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization. Yes, the LDS Church is a part of Christianity. It is the product of a human mind and is not a separate divinely revealed religion as are the others named previously. Mormons are among the nicest people one can ever meet; they possess truth, but not the whole truth.
What I have stated here is the TRUTH, the absolute truth. If you have any doubts pray to God for guidance and He will assuredly assist you.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least 100 views, and as such has been removed from ViewMasters! Congratulations!

A quotation which feels somehow relevant to this article:

"More likely, though, the reader will come away unpersuaded of anything save the self-evident truth of the matter, which is that human beings, being a clannish and quarrelsome lot, tend to find all sorts of things to fight over, and that nearly every aspect of human affairs can serve as a powerful spur to actions both heroic and deplorable. So religion produces both Torquemada and Dorothy Day; philosophy spurs Socrates to die for truth and Heidegger to prostitute himself for Hitler; science cures polio and speeds our missiles on their way; the bonds of family provide the foundation for innumerable happy childhoods, but also for the Wars of the Roses. None of this is to excuse the crimes of religious believers; it's merely to suggest that the line between good and evil runs through every aspect of human affairs, and denouncing belief in God for poisoning the world is as absurd as denouncing "democracy" because it has empowered tyrants from Hitler down to Hugo Chavez, or "equality" because its partisans have included the Jacobins, the Khmer Rouge, and the KGB."

---Ross Douthat, reviewing Christopher Hutchen’s “God is Not Great”, 2007

Christopher: Thank you for sharing your views.

Thomas, I found this article very enjoyable even as old as it is. I always forget to notice the dates of the suggestions Gather brings up.

I've "outgrown" several different religions in my 70 years, and what I notice is that my own spirituality becomes more and more my own and unlike any other I am aware of. I am full circle to a belief I had as a young 24 year old woman-- we arrive here with everything we need to be self-healing and self-guiding, and are promptly distracted from the truth by others' ideas of the truth. Very sad. Children should be taught religious history and Religions' list of "truths" and then allowed to develop their own. Or perhaps to remain ignorant of all these things would be a good thing.

Jesus's instruction to "go into your closet" may well be the only truth we need to hear.

You also missed the earth-centered religions of Wicca and Paganism. They are recognized finally by the USA for military service and emblems on graves in National Cemetaries.

Thank you for sharing your comments.